We need to intervene with the weather to make it never rain again, otherwise all of our buildings will corrode.

Science!

I think you're still missing my point though. I think Musk/X have an "open discussion" model of operation, at least that's what's been implied. That means that some people on the platform won't like what others on the platform have to say, and are free to leave. Other platforms take a different approach. That's fine, and people can pick which (if any) platform to participate in, but claiming that one model is somehow better/worse or more/less "good" is not a reasonable comparison. They're just different.

Depends on the language of the TOS. I'm sure X's TOS is different than, say, Meta's, but IANAL and admit I haven't read either (nor would most people.)

> Reality has a center-left bias.

Western Society probably does.

> If your social media platform doesn't fall within that realm, you've probably done something to drive off a portion of your liberal users. Musk has.

Or a) more liberal users are less likely to participate in debate with those having more right-leaning debate and AND Musk hasn't really done anything to support either side, and doesn't really care which holds a predominant voice on the platform.

> It's well known that left-leaning users get feeds full of rage bait to drive up engagement. The scheme works on some people, but others just get fed up and leave.

Is it possible that "rage bait" is defined differently by people who lean left vs those who lean right? I think so.

> On the far ends of the political spectrum you've got literal Nazis on the extreme right, and on the extreme left liberals suggesting things like giving everyone UBI and free healthcare.

That's nonsense. Yes, there were/are extreme right Nazi's on Twitter/X, but by percentage they were no higher than those encouraging race riots. All political leaning have extremists and as a result get generalized as said extremists, but the TOS violations were limited to the extremists. Generalizing is a dangerous game.

From TFA:

This was just a beta-frontier model without any safeguards in place. In other parts of TFA they indicate they specifically trained this variant to investigate and implement zero-day style attacks if possible. That is, they told it do do something like this breach even if they didn't realize they did. It's fair to conclude that these models have the capability to execute such Cyber attacks unless safeguards are put in place. That said, we can't expect threat-actors to put said safeguards in place on the Open models there is no central governance for, so we should assume this is a possibility and use the tech to harden our systems.

I know it's all scary and people are getting rich and many of you hate both of those things, but at some point reasonable people examine the playing field and learn the new rules when they change. YMMV.

Twitter was a left-leaning platform. Nothing has split. X is just the wild west instead of an echo chamber.

I'm not in the business of shilling for Trump. That said, I always want this to be what the opposite side has to say about my negotiator(s).

The U.S. Electricity market works a little differently than that. Theoretically, the Utility companies only provide the infrastructure for power delivery. Beyond that, anyone (including said Utility company) can provide electricity generation to the grid, and in a lot if not all cases, the customer can choose which generator they buy electricity from. But the customer can generally only use the government-endorsed Utility company for delivery.

My only point is, TFA is pointing out limitations of the U.S. electricity delivery system (reportedly) struggling to keep up with increased generation/storage offerings. It's far from a perfect system, but there is some logic to it. Consumer supposedly has choice in supply, and can even choose renewable-only options in a lot of places. But it doesn't require parallel transmission lines, which also makes sense. The result, however, is mis-aligned and sometimes competing priorities between the vendors.

Anthropic alone is predicted to have $70B-$100B Annual Recurring Revenue by end of 2026. It may not turn out to be the long-term behemoth some are touting, it's way more than a $50B/year industry even today.

Are you implying these folks didn't invent RADAR?

Amazon aside, because I'm not really sure the courts have decided the legality of scanning books for AI training, there's another crime here.

Placing a tracker on an item you sell without informing the buyer is illegal. At least in most of the U.S. The "investigators" in this story likely committed a crime.

Why would they relocate the staff?

Depends on how you look at it. There were more "big" companies in the past, but they've been weakened to the point that consolidation has reduced that to a "few" big companies with lower margins. Not sure if the pool itself is smaller or poorer, but there are definitely less pieces of the pie.

We should tariff this in to oblivion. We need to be making battery cells (of all kinds) domestically. That means we need to adjust regulations to allow it, and also prevent foreign subsidies from pricing competition too low for it to make sense. The latter is literally what tariffs are for.

More laws against killing isn't going to solve the killing problem.